The law firm hired by Republicans in the House of Representatives to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act withdrew Monday amid pressure from gay rights groups. The decision prompted the resignation of a prominent partner, who said he intended to take the case with him to another law office.
Gay rights groups had fiercely criticized the law firm, the 126-year-old King & Spalding of Atlanta, saying that its agreement to defend the law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, would hurt its ability to recruit and retain lawyers. The firm’s chairman, Robert D. Hays Jr., said in a statement Monday morning that the firm would no longer defend the law.
Paul Clement is the lawyer who is resigning from King & Spalding. He may well have other reasons for doing so, but his publicly stated reason for resigning is a good one.
“I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters,” he wrote. “Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do. I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it.”
The Times also reports that the hourly fee for this legal defense (you and I are paying it) nets the defending firm $520/hour. Nancy Pelosi doesn't like it and has berated John Boehner for using public money to defend discrimination.
The House of Representatives demanded that the law firm they hire be "virgins" in the issue of gay marriage.
The statement from [the firm's chairman] Mr. Hays did not cite pressure from gay advocacy groups as a reason for the change. His stated reason — that the approval process for taking on the assignment was inadequate — could refer to a clause in the contract with House Republicans that prohibited the firm’s lawyers from any advocacy for or against bills that would change or repeal the marriage act.
Legal experts said that clause is broader than most restrictions in contracts and could have severely limited the activities of the firm’s partners and employees.
“It would be one thing for the lawyers to agree not to pursue litigation on the other side of the matter,” said Andrew M. Perlman, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston and an expert on legal ethics. “But this would have prohibited any lawyer in the firm from even writing a letter criticizing the Defense of Marriage Act.”
